By virtue of stringing together a sequence of dubious premises across several posts, there is no NAP violation...Congratulations.

But the idea that somehow you're going to have a donation-based state that has territorial jurisdiction but never chooses to exercise it's power in any aggressive way is terribly naive. At least with competing defense companies, no one gets to be the "one ring to rule them all."

Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."-MAM

First of all, it's not donation based; it's forced compensation based, remember? It takes compensation from those who caused it to take action by initiating the use of violence.

Second, I understand that mistakes will be made. I provided some methods of limiting them.

Third, defense companies do rule them all. Every single defense company does. That is the nature of force. Their uses of coercion do not just affect those who consent to it. It affects everyone who happens to fall under it's blow. Would you rather fear the wrath of many companies, all seeking their own versions of success through their own methods by their own motives, or fear the wrath of just one, which holds democratic elections that give you a say in it's actions, has clearly written laws, and follows an objective constitution as it's driving force?

Logged

If you enjoyed this post, or just want to argue, check out my blog: MostlyLibertarian.com

You said that the landlord is unwilling to testify. If the landlord is unwilling to bring a lawsuit then nothing will be done.

On the other hand, if the landlord does press charges and the tenant is unwilling to testify then there is no reason for forcing him to do so. Evidence will just be brought against him by the landlord without his bringing any defense. He may win or he may lose. He will only be informed about the lawsuit brought against him and given the choice of what to do.

After a judgement is made, if the landlord is the winner then the tenant will be forced to compensate him according to the judgement. If the tenant is the winner then the landlord will be forced to compensate him for the unjust harm caused by his untrue, or unsupported, charges.

Where do you see a violation of the NAP by the CA in this scenario?

It depends on how the CA forces the tenant to compensate the landlord. I don't really see one in the scenario as we imagined it, but I also don't see that a central authority is necessary to get the same result either. Another private arbitration corporation could make the same ruling. However, it might not feel like justice if a reasonable standard of evidence wasn't met. In cases like this, I'm guessing that the worst thing that would happen to the tenant would be a blemish on his reputation rating. It would be unlikely that a security company or some officer of the arbitration company or the CA would break into the tenant's car and take his iPad and GPS to give to the landlord as compensation. (That feels like it would be a violation of the NAP to me.)

The next time that tenant tries to rent an apartment, the landlord might check the reputation rating and find the previous judgement. The new landlord might then require a higher rent, or a bigger security deposit, or the landlord might not rent to the tenant at all. All of these outcomes could be handled in the market, and you wouldn't need to 'steal' some of the tenants stuff to enforce a previous judgement.

Some of those "solutions" are nice and I would definitely try to employ them if I were a landlord in an Anarchist society. However, they do not address the fundamental issue. The landlord would likely still be left with a destroyed room.

The choice is between an assortment of questionable solutions and one certain solution.

Ever heard of Occam's Razor?

Logged

If you enjoyed this post, or just want to argue, check out my blog: MostlyLibertarian.com

Would you rather fear the wrath of many companies, all seeking their own versions of success through their own methods by their own motives, or fear the wrath of just one, which holds democratic elections that give you a say in it's actions, has clearly written laws, and follows an objective constitution as it's driving force?

Assuming I liked the constitution, then perhaps I would rather have that. But it's a fantasy. No matter how clearly you write the constitution, I think people will find a way to erode it. You admitted yourself it can't hold back the state's growth (or am I getting you mixed up with Centinel?)

Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."-MAM

Some of those "solutions" are nice and I would definitely try to employ them if I were a landlord in an Anarchist society. However, they do not address the fundamental issue. The landlord would likely still be left with a destroyed room.

The choice is between an assortment of questionable solutions and one certain solution.

Ever heard of Occam's Razor?

Occam's Razor...

Feel my cheeks; baby smooth.

By your own admission, the CA is an uncertain solution. "Mistakes will be made" <-- you said that

Occam won't touch it!

Back to your post. The landlord still has a destroyed room. Sometimes compensation is not possible. There are cases where any authority, central or decentralized, will be unable to go back in time and right a wrong. And that's sad. If I ever get violated, there isn't an authority in the whole world who can get me my anal virginity back.

Life is risky, and a central authority doesn't minimize that risk. You can get the same results in a decentralized way. It would probably be cheaper due to competition.

Unfortunately, for an anarchist society to work, a committed minority would need to actually be anarchists, with most other people being indifferent. That is why I think, at this point, voluntarism can only work on a small scale.

The State is definitively doing its job with education, though. Most people find it totally acceptable to force our laws onto the Amish.